My friend Mark Barrett, a lawyer with an apparently amazing capacity to read and absorb legal decisions, writes with this interesting quote from Justice Ginsburg’s concurring opinion (page 29):
A mandate to purchase a particular product would be unconstitutional if, for example, the edict impermissibly abridged the freedom of speech, interfered with the free exercise of religion, or infringed on a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.
Update: Speaking before his remarks at the symposium on Socially Responsible Investing we sponsored this evening with the Catholic Finance Association, William Mumma, the head of the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty , brought up Justice Ginsburg’s comment and said that he thought this meant that the legal challenges to the individual mandate would succeed. I wasn’t taking notes and he didn’t say much about it, but that was the gist.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The Dreadful Christ of Pär Lagerkvist
It’s dangerous to meet a god,” says the disgraced Pythia in Pär Lagerkvist’s The Sibyl. Her observation…
The Possibility of Possibility
"Might could” is a Southern expression meaning “maybe I could” or “I might be able to,” conveying…
The False Promise of No Contact
Around the time nineteen-year-old Alice began cutting ties with her family, she announced on social media that…
